to want to abolish private schools' charitable status?

[minifingers]

Which costs the tax payer 100 million squids a year.

Schools justify having charitable status by saying they offer financial help to 'disadvantaged' children.

The 'disadvantaged' children they refer to are actually, almost to a boy/girl, highly intelligent, academically successful children who have outstandingly supportive parents (otherwise they wouldn't be researching bursaries/applying for schools/preparing their children for exams). In other words, not at all disadvantaged. These are the children who generally succeed very highly in the state sector too.

I personally think that tax-payers money should go towards supporting those children who are failing in education, not to those children who are already succeeding. Surely it's more beneficial for the children who are currently failing most severely in the state sector to have tax payers money spent on them, as these are the children who the tax payer ends up supporting through benefits/the prison system.

In addition, 'skimming off' this top layer of very clever children and sending them to be educated separately from other ordinary kids impacts on the learning of all the other children in the state sector - any of us who have done a degree/been in education know what a difference it makes to be in a class where there are a lot of clever/motivated people, how much more enjoyable and productive learning is.

Just to draw a mumsnet analogy - imagine if all the funniest and most interesting posters here were offered their own site - 'mumsnet gold', where they could be funny and interesting all day long and those of us who are not as funny and clever would be excluded. Imagine how much of a loss that would be to everyone here? we could rename the new non-gold site 'netmums2'

So, AIBU?

Take the £100000000 currently given to private schools and give it to state schools with the largest number of underachieving students to spend on supporting their education instead?

Really? Why aren't they campaigning for it then?

I don't know. I'm guessing there are many reasons and I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that it is very complicated. They didn't seem too bothered when the direct grant system was abolished though so perhaps they are just waiting for somebody else to campaign for the changes on their behalf so they can't be accused of not wanting to charitable (even though many probably don't want to be charitable).

That obviously works well in your house Jayne but it's important to note as well the posts on this same thread about sending to private 'to avoid the Jaydens'.

We have one private and one state too in our house and they mix very well. The state one is at least as disadvantaged as Jayden due to his very complex additional needs. He can't even wipe his own backside and has regular violent outbursts. So, no avoiding a very complex child for my private school kid.

One person said that from memory
I would put money on (if I had any) that there are people out there who wouldn't send their child to private school because they're full of snobs, not our sort, assuming they'll be treated like the poor ones.
The world is full of 'them and us' people.

Thewoman this thread is not about the individual experience of you and your children, but the general principle.

Are you going to make that point to shockinglybadteacher too?
Individuals make the whole. I'm using my children (both estate and private) as examples of those it benefits. Children who would lose out if things changed.

I do take your point about legislation Jassy - but as it currently stands:

1. Education is defined as a charitable aim
2. Charities are allowed to charge fees for their services as long as they also demonstrate public benefit
3. Charities are not allowed to wind up without passing their assets on to another charity

I find it hard to see how that lot could be unpicked without also impacting a whole lot of other charities who are not independent schools...

The amount received is less than a child would need to go to state school.

Why not consider that amount as the cost of paying for that child's basic English maths and science lessons. The fees paid on top cover the rest.

echt General principles need to be backed up by real life experience and examples surely?

A characteristic of threads like these, and The Woman is a case in point, is that those opposed to the general principle of the mass not paying for the few (in this case), are opposed by those who imagine their single experience outweighs the wider justice.

thewoman, it's not that children at private schools aren't mixing with children who are very similar to many of the children who go to state schools. After all, there are many children like mine at state school - from professional families, bright, lots of interests.

It's that they are definitely not mixing with the sort of children who are invariably at most state schools and who private schools have no interest in or provision for: children who are not high achievers from poor and/or dysfunctional households.

There is a whole layer of society that will continue to be an absolute mystery to children receiving a privileged education.

I sometimes wonder if the extreme lack of empathy and understanding shown by our government towards the poor, uneducated and struggling has its roots in the fact that they are pretty much all public/private school educated and have thus had no real human contact and experience of this sector of society.

I think overall, the UNFAIRNESS of a system of education where the children of the most successful, best educated and wealthiest families have twice as much spent on their education, and where there is a solid system of social, intellectual and economic apartheid shaping a country's educational provision - well I think it's immoral. And if you buy into that system you are helping to perpetuate it.

littlewhitebag, please read the OP. This about general matters, not the individual.

"the general principle of the mass not paying for the few (in this case), are opposed by those who imagine their single experience outweighs the wider justice."

I think the general principle on mumsnet is that any sort of hypocrisy/unfairness is morally permissible/understandable, if someone can argue that they are doing it for their children.

Unless of course that immoral act is benefit fraud/work dodging - which many unemployed parents may do to save their child from the embarrassment of having worn out clothes/shoes, or to avoid having to put them in childcare which the parent feels would be harmful/distressing to them.

But people are individuals
And stripping schools of charitable status won't impact on those you are talking about. They'll just pay the bit extra.
And with the current state schools system children are not all mixed intogether. You have those who've bought into an area at one school and those who can't afford to at another.

Is Jayden not an individual then or is his example okay because he is one of the have nots rather than one of the haves?

There is a whole layer of society that will continue to be an absolute mystery to children receiving a privileged education.
Do you think that a private education is in some way superior? What about state grammar education is that also privileged and a mystery to others? I wen to a really shitty state school but i wouldn't say that private school was a mystery to me. I was aware of its existence, I was aware that ome of the children paid full fees and some didn't, I was aware that some kids at private schools were bright and others not so bright. We used to catch the same bus to school and I didn't feel inferior in any way.

Unless of course that immoral act is benefit fraud/work dodging - which many unemployed parents may do to save their child from the embarrassment of having worn out clothes/shoes, or to avoid having to put them in childcare which the parent feels would be harmful/distressing to them.

I hope you are not saying that benefit fraud / work dodging is okay.

In England, and certainly in Inner London where I live, very few of us make decisions about our children's education just with reference to general principles. We each look at our own children and our local schools and proceed from there.

Some people won't consider academically selective schools and/or faith schools and/or fee-paying schools. Others might be willing to consider them but can't realistically get a place. So the children end up all over the place.

That's fine, TheWoman, I couldn't give a shiny shit about the social mix, I just want the private buyers to pay the full fee. Every post I've ever made on MN has made the same point.

Pony up the dough you private fuckers.

And while I'm here, if the charitable status is worth so little, and the parents would just cough up the conkers, why haven't they done it?

Eh?

"It's that they are definitely not mixing with the sort of children who are invariably at most state schools and who private schools have no interest in or provision for: children who are not high achievers from poor and/or dysfunctional households."

Minifingers, you are making inaccurate sweeping generalisations.

I went to private school, in my class there was the daughter of a postman, her grandfather set up a trust for her education, another girl with similar background and circumstances who lived on a pretty rough council estate but parents scrimped and saved over many years before they saved enough to send her. There was a girl with learning difficulties who was in our class and received extra help 1:1. She also had severe speech problems. There was also a girl from a wealthy family but had a terrible home life. Lots of abuse in the family.

Maybe my private school was unique but probably not.

"Pony up the dough you private fuckers"

What are you on about echt?

Bitter, much?

Anyone want to comment on my post at 12.30?

So what, Barbierella?

The individual examples you give don't change the general point that private schools are subsidised by the state, while pretending to be a business.

This is not about the shit/fab lives individuals live, but principles about taxes and charitable status.

I've just checked and my sons prep school is not a registered charity. I guess it must never have had charitable status. It's fees are still a lot lower than most others and it still does a lot of community work and raises a lot of money for charity each year.
I wonder how many private schools are not registered charities.

littlewhitebag, what possible objection could you have at paying for a private service?